Faecal sludge management seems to be the flavour of the month. Now it is the theme of the July edition of Waterlines. In the editorial Prof. Richard Carter writes:
In the typical population densities of urban slums, a sludge volume of between 5,000 and 10,000 cubic metres is produced every year per square kilometre of inhabited land. This overflows – or is deliberately caused to overflow – from full pit latrines. it contaminates soil, homes, surface water, and groundwater, with inevitable impacts on human health.
This issue of Waterlines includes the following four papers, which:
reinforce the message that the problems of faecal sludge management require systematic solutions which pay due attention to technology, economy and demand, business models and business planning, and public policy and institutions.
Adventures in search of the ideal portable pit-emptying machine, p. 187-199
David Still, Mark O’Riordan, Angus McBride, et al.
The importance of understanding the market when designing pit-emptying devices, p. 200-212
Inefficient technology or misperceived demand: the failure of Vacutug-based pit-emptying services in Bangladesh, p. 213-220
Aftab Opel, M. Khairul Bashar
Development of urban septage management models in Indonesia, p. 221-236
Kevin Tayler, Reini Siregar, Budi Darmawan, et al.
View the full list of contents at: practicalaction.metapress.com/content/g66j1n45143m
To order a single copy (cost £30.00), send an email to: email@example.com
Individual articles, except the editorial, are available only to subscribers or as pay-per-view (www.practicalactionpublishing.org/waterlines).
While the July edition of Waterline will be informative to those that can afford the dues /fees around the journal/articles it leave many of us at the gate.
As we talk about governments being forthcoming about information around water / sanitation / hygiene / public health to meet post 2015 goals, we must
find ways to make articles found in publications such as Waterline freely accessible to those around the world who have limited financial resources.
There should be nothing elite about Sh!t and piss, and the study there of…
A few years ago there was an online discussion on whether Waterlines should become an open access journal. The editor, who also participated in the discussion, rejected this option. This is regrettable, especially when you consider that the research published in Waterlines has most likely all been financed with public money and that many national and private research funding organizations and universities explicitly cover journal publication fees for articles originated in funded research projects.
There are numerous open access WASH-related journals like Water Alternatives, Water SA, Sustainable Sanitation Practices Journal, Water. The business model of the most well known open access journal platform PLOS, is based on a differentiated author/research sponsor pay model; authors from the least developed countries are not be charged for publishing.